[Three of Seven]

You can view the article at https://ufplanets.com/news.php?1164-...ow-Trek-Trivia

[Noram]

A Star Trek lead that doesn't care enough about the franchise to even learn who has been in it. Sad.

[aceman67]

A Star Trek lead that doesn't care enough about the franchise to even learn who has been in it. Sad.

Sad, maybe, but a problem? Hardly.

At this point, I think that people are just latching on to whatever they can to hate on the new series without even giving it a chance, and to be honest, they've done this EVERY time a new Star Trek series has come about going all the way back to the launch of TNG, always saying that it won't live up to what came before, and in so doing, set it up for failure.

Sure, DS9 started rough but in time did a lot more for the franchise than any of the other series (in terms of lore, character development, etc. Hell, what we as fans see as Klingons today we owe to DS9 and its development of Worf.), and Voyager was 'meh' but it wasn't terrible. Enterprise was mismanaged and its final season was criminally underrated and the finale was just criminal, but that wasn't the series' fault.

Sure, CBS has done some highly questionable and unpopular things in the last few years (IE Axanar to name a big one), but if we want to continue getting Star Trek at all, at least some leway should be given.

People who throw around negativity for negativity's sake "Are the reason we can't have nice things." If you want a good example, look at Mass Effect Andromeda: Good game, medocure story, and flaws that were eventually fixed, but the massive backlash has all but killed the franchise for everyone.

[Saelanna]

Sad, maybe, but a problem? Hardly.

At this point, I think that people are just latching on to whatever they can to hate on the new series without even giving it a chance, and to be honest, they've done this EVERY time a new Star Trek series has come about going all the way back to the launch of TNG, always saying that it won't live up to what came before, and in so doing, set it up for failure.

Sure, DS9 started rough but in time did a lot more for the franchise than any of the other series (in terms of lore, character development, etc. Hell, what we as fans see as Klingons today we owe to DS9 and its development of Worf.), and Voyager was 'meh' but it wasn't terrible. Enterprise was mismanaged and its final season was criminally underrated and the finale was just criminal, but that wasn't the series' fault.

Sure, CBS has done some highly questionable and unpopular things in the last few years (IE Axanar to name a big one), but if we want to continue getting Star Trek at all, at least some leway should be given.

People who throw around negativity for negativity's sake "Are the reason we can't have nice things." If you want a good example, look at Mass Effect Andromeda: Good game, medocure story, and flaws that were eventually fixed, but the massive backlash has all but killed the franchise for everyone.

Agreed.

I have a friend who refused to watch TNG at first, and then constantly came up with various arguments about how TOS was better. She's done the same for every incarnation of the franchise since then, refusing to enjoy them because she thinks they take something away from Shatner-Trek. To this day she hasn't seen any of the reboot movies, her loss!

Personally I've yet to meet a Trek I didn't like so I will be avidly watching Discovery next week.

See you around the galaxy!

[SCOOP]

But..but Worf is a Klingon, right? Or maybe.. Sonequa Martin-Green is acting so hard that she actually believes she's from discovery's rebooted universe where KirK+Picard+Sisko and what not don't exist? Now it would make sense to claim she was the first african american in Star Trek!!

[Three of Seven]

People who throw around negativity for negativity's sake "Are the reason we can't have nice things." If you want a good example, look at Mass Effect Andromeda: Good game, medocure story, and flaws that were eventually fixed, but the massive backlash has all but killed the franchise for everyone.

Andromeda is not a good example, its launch was a disaster and the negative criticism it got was mostly warranted, you can't expect people to accept "my face is tired" and other examples of awful quality out of fear that the franchise might get canned. People should voice their opinions, negative ones should be welcomed and adjustments made if something really dumb is said or added to something. A lot of the backlash Andromeda got wasn't negativity for negativity sake, it was because it was released in an exceptionally poor state.

If people want nice things, they need to stand up to companies and tell them when things are wrong, you should never be scared to voice a negative opinion of something. What sort of a world would that be? Think of all the awful games we would have if no one said anything bad about big publishers putting out unfinished games.

The worse part is, if Discovery does flop, people will point at those who said negative things about it and say "It's their fault it flopped!" rather than pointing the finger at the studio or the cast. It's not the fault of people having negative opinions though, it's the fault of the studio and those involved in the production. It's like the newest Ghostbusters film, people blamed it being a flop because of negative views and sexism, rather than looking at the film itself in an objective manner.

[Noram]

Sad, maybe, but a problem? Hardly.

At this point, I think that people are just latching on to whatever they can to hate on the new series without even giving it a chance, and to be honest, they've done this EVERY time a new Star Trek series has come about going all the way back to the launch of TNG, always saying that it won't live up to what came before, and in so doing, set it up for failure.

My fear is that this lack of concern for the legacy of the Star Trek franchise by the lead actress is something that will be reflected in the entire production.

The fact that a lead in a Star Trek show doesn't even know the very basics about the franchise's past seems to me to indicate one of two things. Either she didn't care enough to learn, or the production staff didn't think it was important that she know and didn't tell her to learn. If she willfully didn't try to learn even a little about the enormous pop culture icon she was going to be part of, then it reflects poorly on her as an actor. If the production staff decided that it wasn't important for the actors to know anything about the franchise before making their addition to it, then it reflects poorly on the entire production.

[Scarlett]

To be fair, did Patrick Stewart know much about Star Trek when he signed on?

I'll give Discovery a shot because I like Star Trek. Yet, I agree, that it's not my job to be entertained, and my love of things Trek does not mean I should be forced to sit through a terrible presentation (not that I expect it).

[Gustav]

How in the hell do you screw that up

[SCOOP]

Here's what I've learnt about STD :

I. It's a prequel+reboot
II. It portraits out of place technology that isn't appropriate for the T0S era
III. Awkward Klingons
IV. New characters suddenly being related to famous characters like spock in a hilarious attempt to win over the hardcore Trek crowd, I suppose??
V. Actors do not care if we get STD or not (Isaacs)

and now Martin-Green believing she was the first african american in star trek..

Sorry, but this sounds all wrong to me..

[aceman67]

The game is extremely boring with your repetitive missions; the premise of the story was cool, but the execution was terrible; Companions are bland; characters look goofy af. The harsh critisism that Andromeda recieved was to me, fully justified.

While you make valid points, most I agree with, I still have to disagree with you with it being fully justified.

90% of the criticism was pinpoint focused on the animations and some gameplay glitches, and the internet and some publications railed on the game for months, over an issue that A) Could (and was for the most part) be fixed B) didn't effect the gameplay all that much.

I'm all for criticism, but it should be constructive, and the level of hate and vitriol it got constantly after its launch was not justified, and that, 'is why we can't have nice things', IE story content DLC I was waiting for.

[Bedders]

This reminds me a bit of when Steam thought that selling mods on the workshop was a great idea - and then started with an Elder Scrolls game, one of the most well-established modding scenes known to PC at present. Not the best target audience to try and enter the market at.

The fact that the lead actress clearly has no idea of the MASSIVE following Star Trek has, nor quite how in-depth a lot of fans go with regards to continuity (across series, episodes etc.) makes me worried about how much the rest of the cast care. And if the cast don't care, why should they do their best to perform?

[mark_cameron]

I highly dislike the show. Gave up after episode 2.

[Aralil]

I can't have an opinion yet. I spend my extra cash on games, not on streaming what use to be a local network. I will wait a season or two, if it gets that far, then binge watch it during a 7 day free trial of CBS's "I'm a big boy like Netflix now" subscription.

[Dark]

The discussion here got me to click and read the relatively short article, and wow. It's not even some sort of minutia about Star Trek, this isn't "Trek Trivia". Trek Trivia are things we'd need to refer to Memory Alpha to double-check, not something you'd know by literally spending 5 seconds to just scroll through the Star Trek entry on wikipedia - where Avery Brooks has his face plastered as being the lead of DS9.

It's a really staggering amount of ignorant self-absorption to claim to be the first black lead in Star Trek.
It'd be like a lady publicly claiming to be the first woman to make a medical breakthrough.